|
Minn.* oimi wj:stkiln KKi*<mri:K. 2d skiuks i. • I •v^.I or habitual yelping or b;irk-Id. ai 343. 7S1 P.M at 1241. The «. held the ordinance was unconstitu* lly va^cue. li reasoned that because ikm of the ordinance tume<l on the iibofs ’ level of tolerance or intolerance
<br />larkinf. .in avera|*c person of common
<br />ii^LMice could noc determine pmliihitcd
<br />ucc We find llie reasoninf^ by the
<br />t in rnrher logical and fiersuasive, and
<br />>t it in this case.
<br />DECISION
<br />•lina City Onlinance, NiimlxT 312,
<br />kg) is ui>conf.ututM>nal)y vague as ap-
<br />I to appellant and dc|>fivcs him of liuc
<br />•ess oi law.
<br />eversed.
<br />(o 5 MTMtMMfSfiNMy
<br />ST.4TE of Minnesota, Rcsp<indenl,
<br />V.
<br />Wmiam C. ERICKSON, Appellant
<br />No. C-l-419-1227.
<br />Court of Appeals of Miiinesola.
<br />May 1, 1900.
<br />Review Denied May 23, 1990.
<br />Defendant was convicted in .he Dis-
<br />iCt Court, Hennepin County, H. Peter Al-
<br />ecKt, J., of sexual abuse of a child and he
<br />i]¥^€iL The Court of Appeals, WozniaV,
<br />J.. held that: (1) it was not error to
<br />vclude defense testimony concerning
<br />,udy of unwanted children and psychologi-
<br />i) theory of learned memory, and (2) evi-
<br />jnee was sufficicnl to sustain the convic-
<br />1. Coff^slUutkMUil Law i->26b(10>Tlie due process right to present a defense b Uie right to present the defendant's version of the taels as wd! as the proscrcution's to the jury so it may dixide wlicrc llie truth lies. U.S.C.A. OinsL
<br />Amend. 14.
<br />2. ConsUltttional Law e»2^ll>)
<br />Exclusion of irstimony regarding
<br />Chechoslovakian study of uiiwajitcd chil
<br />dren and testimony regarding psycliologi-
<br />cal theory of IcameiJ mciuor>* did not vio-
<br />btc dcfetidani's due process righU in prosr
<br />ecution for sexual altusc of a child, where
<br />tl»c defense tlieory thai Uie victim was
<br />coerced \nUt telling a suggested story of
<br />.sexual abuse was prescnletL U.S.C.A.
<br />Const. A mend. 14.
<br />3. Criminal l>aw ^469.2
<br />Admis-sibilily of expert testimony b
<br />within sound discretion of trial court.
<br />4. Criminal Law c^333(7)
<br />Even when helpfulness re<juircment
<br />for admbsion of cxjiert testimony is met,
<br />trial court may exclude testimony on the
<br />basis that its probative value is outweighed
<br />by the danger of unfa*: prejudice. 30
<br />W S.A., Rules of Evul., Rules 403. 702.
<br />3. Cnminal Law 0=.487
<br />Trial court did not abuse its discretion
<br />in excluding, for lack of foundation cstalp
<br />ILshing Uiat child concerned was "unwant
<br />ed" and limited relevance to American club
<br />dren, proffered defense testimony concern
<br />ing Czechoslovakian study which tracked
<br />children who were unwanted by their moth
<br />ers, offered by defeiidarit to show Uiai
<br />child who accused him of sexual abuse was
<br />vnilnerable to suggestions by her moUicr
<br />because she was an unwanted child.
<br />6b Criminal Law ^171.3(1)
<br />Trial court did not abuse its discrclioa
<br />in excluding testimony on psychological
<br />theory of learned versus actual memory,
<br />offere<l by defendant charged with sexual
<br />abuse of a child, because of its (xitential for
<br />iinibilv infliH'iirinr the jury's cn*<iihilily ile-
<br />VI
<br />- u
<br />i*
<br />a
<br />•r;
<br />% 5?
<br />-.■f
<br />s
<br />‘C:I•-0
<br />V.i
<br />/• ««• *«•»
<br />CM. N-KJ4 «♦ 1*^7. Criir»in»l Ijiw ♦-*474J(I>Expert testimony rvganiing IniUi or falsity o* witness* xUcjjaiion is not admissible.• •Hs Criminal I*aw €=»1139.2(1)If the piry. giving due rc^rard for the
<br />prrsutnpcion of innocence ami the State's
<br />OPINION 0 IWOZNIAK. Chief Judge.AdpeUont William C. Eriekson wa« coi»- vicled of efiminal sexua. conduct in violation of MiiuiiiUL $ 609 U2. aubd. 1(a) (I'JRS) in connection with the sexual abuse
<br />of Kb girlfriend’a then eighlyear-old
<br />» m • A
<br />t. Crimiaal La* ^1144.17(3. 6)
<br />Reviewing court a*tulrues the record
<br />most favorably U> the Stale when review
<br />ing the verdirl and assumes the evidence
<br />in V ........................ — •
<br />burden of proving g»iilt beyond a rea.v>n- 11.11. On ap()eal, Erickion
<br />able doubl, could reasonably conclude Hal trial couK's refusal In ad-
<br />dcfsnd.ml was proved goilly. iu verdict teiUmony on a psychological
<br />will not be di.Hiurl)cd. theory which recognizes a distinction be
<br />tween "learned memory ” and mcmoiy of
<br />aclu.il evcoU ami on a (bechoslovakiail
<br />stmly of unwanted children violated hil
<br />in|; viu.- —- _______ right to present a defense. Erickson afcso
<br />supporting the conviclioo was believed and claims that Uie evidence b insufficient to
<br />sustain his conviction. We disagree and
<br />affirm his conviction.
<br />FAcns
<br />In April 198«. Erickson was living with
<br />hb girlfriend. DJI., her daughter. If.II,
<br />and her five-yeais>ld son. D.H. told a
<br />friend that the suspected Erickaon of sexu
<br />ally abusing II.II. and asked her to talk to
<br />the contrary evidence was disbeUeved, es-
<br />peebUy where resolution of the case de
<br />pends on cwnlradiclory testimony.
<br />!•. InfanU «>20
<br />Victim's testimony was sufficient to
<br />Etulain defendant's cimvktion for sexual
<br />abuse of a child, notwithsUnding evidence
<br />that story had Itocn suggested to the child
<br />bv oUmmts.
<br />Syllabux by the ( ouH ^ conversation, OJl.
<br />1. Trbl court did not err m exc udmg ^ ^
<br />e*i«rt testimony regarding psychological Erickion had touched her
<br />ihcory of "lcanic*l metnoo' »nd a sooolog- earlier wlule everyone else waa
<br />gotm. H.H. also 4oW him that Erickson
<br />had touched her four or five timea begin
<br />ning after Chrisunas 1981. D.H. dariricd
<br />that the last time Erkkson watched H.11.
<br />while D.U. was gone was on April 8, 1988,
<br />H.IL next ulked to Sergeant Camie Ii^
<br />vine, nn invesligutor with the MiimeapoKs
<br />Police Dcpnrtmenl'a Child Abuse UniL
<br />The interview was videotaped and portions
<br />were admitted inUi evidence. Irvine used
<br />ical slutly of unwanted chikiren.
<br />2. The evidence b sufficient t4i sus
<br />tain Erickson ’s conviction of first degree
<br />criminal sexual conduct, Minn.SUL
<br />{ S09.342, Bubd. 1(a) (1988).
<br />Hubert II. Ilumplirey. HI, Ally. Gen.,
<br />Thomas L. Johnson. Hennepin Onmly
<br />Ally, and Lba A. Rcrg. AssL County AUy.,
<br />Minneapolb, for rcsiHmdcnt. ------------------------
<br />Jolm M. Stuart, State Public Defender anatomically correH dolb during the inter
<br />and Susan UP. Ilauge. AssL Public De- view. II.H. described three separate ina^
<br />fender, Minneapolb, for appeIbnL
<br />William G. Erickson, Stillwater, appellant
<br />pro se.
<br />Considered and decided by WOZMAK,
<br />CJ.. and PARKER and SCIIUI-TZ.* JJ.
<br />ITHJW. aa.aa. ----------------- .
<br />dents. She dkln't know precisely whem the
<br />incklcnu occurred, but described them as
<br />beginning in January 1988 and ending on
<br />Aiwil 13 when Erickson was arrested on an
<br />unrclaletl matter. H.II. slated that he had
<br />touched her with his fingm on her anal,
<br />a «...... i„.i,1..- r.mr. I.r An*caK bv ap- peioim^nt piffv.>»nl U> Minn. Cowl. art. VI. §
|